Kayani warns US

[ares]

Wow! you're just dragging this conversation and also pulling my leg. First of all I never used the word nukes in any way so get this through you're head ----- missiles can be be used without nuclear and they can be used in other countries. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Uzbek These countries shouldn't be a big issue because as per my knowledge our relations with them are not great as they want their problems to be shifted to our side which again it makes sense. Second of all did i mention Saudi Arabia in any way? So stop using that baseless example. We have good relations with them therefore the idea of bombing them is stupid. That i will say is suicide.

Oh yes I am pulling your leg because the your idea of Pakistanis should make a dozen new enemies just because they are US allies is juvenile.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

When I am fighting someone whom I know for sometime and used to be my best friend, I will intentionally hold back my punches....but once it is in the street and I for sure know that he is plotting against me with my enemy behind my back I wont hold back my punches.
That is what Pakistani and American relations are about...you two are holding back your punches, but when push come to shve it is going to become one dirty killing field.

I hope that dosent happen.

 

[Edevelop]

Oh yes I am pulling your leg because the your idea of Pakistanis should make a dozen new enemies just because they are US allies is juvenile.

Are you serious? You really think that all these countries i mentioned to you are American allies? Think again. Why do you think these governments let Americans have bases? Its cuz they are the same shi* they are corrupt and money makes them go round. You really think afghanis and iraqi public love America. I think that if we bomb the american bases based in their country they will be more than happy.

 

[happycanuck]

Our Missiles may not reach the United States but we can surely destroy their bases in parts of Afghanistan, Middle East, etc. I'm not sure how you mean its a suicide

That is what I like when you include Middle East in your targets. I hope they make you General in the PA right away. This will pave a way for immediate expulsion of all Pakistanis from that region. You are trying to bite the hand that feeds you. This is just the height of stupidity. You have outdone rest of the forum posters. Keep your emotions in check and give us some rational thoughts only leave the chest thumping to your politicians and Generals, do not encroach their territory otherwise they will hunt you down.

 

[ares]

If the US could 'take out Pakistani nukes' without risking a massive regional fallout, it would have already done so.

As I pointed out, Pakistan's nuclear capability has the greatest value in preventing any potential situation from getting to the point where it has to be used, and not in its actual use.

And Kayani did not make any public statement on 'nukes' - he made a comment in a closed briefing to parliament, so lets not concoct silly sentiments like 'desperation' out of thin air.

Yes they haven't taken out your nukes because the present risk assessment is negative.ie the potential of you using nukes against US interests to the potential of such an operation failing in attaining all its objectives.

But if and when such risk assessment becomes positive(ie your potential to use nukes against US interests increases beyond certain limit) they will not hesitate to take them out..or at least will attempt to do so.

And in fact their failure to completely denuclearize Pakistan will be more harmful for Pakistanis themselves than were US to completely succeeds in its objectives.

 

[53fd]

That is your assumption ..but what if they do??
But even then lets assume your best scenario ..ie.

Pakistan threatens to use nukes, US decides to take out Pakistani nukes as a precaution..they steal some nuke triggers using their SEAL teams, bomb some storage facilities..take out your nuclear enrichment facilities..even then as they have incomplete knowledge, they miss a few.
And then you decide to launch..even are able to launch a couple of them at US forces in the region..what happens to you then??

Pakistan's nukes cannot just be taken out. They are not assembled lying somewhere. I have talked about this before in great detail, & I won't talk about it again. Feel free to live in your delusions. If the US was privy to inside details of Pakistan's nuclear program, then why does it keep fearing about Pakistan's nukes?

CIA: US does not know location of all Pakistan's nuclear weapons - Telegraph

Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Complex

NTI: Global Security Newswire - Pakistani Nukes Mean U.S. Should Think Hard on Strikes, Army Head Says

 

[Edevelop]

Yes they haven't taken out your nukes because the present risk assessment is negative.ie the potential of you using nukes against US interests to the potential of such an operation failing in attaining all its objectives.

But if and when such risk assessment becomes positive(ie your potential to use nukes against US interests increases beyond certain limit) they will not hesitate to take them out..or at least will attempt to do so.

And in fact their failure to completely denuclearize Pakistan will be more harmful for Pakistanis themselves than were US to completely succeeds in its objectives.

Again the nukes are just referred to scare them off

---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------

That is what I like when you include Middle East in your targets. I hope they make you General in the PA right away. This will pave a way for immediate expulsion of all Pakistanis from that region. You are trying to bite the hand that feeds you. This is just the height of stupidity. You have outdone rest of the forum posters. Keep your emotions in check and give us some rational thoughts only leave the chest thumping to your politicians and Generals, do not encroach their territory otherwise they will hunt you down.

Read my post before posting your's

 

[Edevelop]

You are trying to bite the hand that feeds you.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you're talking about the American aid. Believe it or not the fact is there is no such thing as aid. Most of the money they used to give us was basically for the supplies to reach Afghanistan. Do you have any idea how much money we spent on YOUR war on terror The media you probably watch are all Western and they are great for hollywood movies. By the way if we just increase just 1 % of Tax in our own country then there is no need for aid. Go do your homework and see if any one from the Pakistani Army says the aid is a must.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes they haven't taken out your nukes because the present risk assessment is negative.ie the potential of you using nukes against US interests to the potential of such an operation failing in attaining all its objectives.

But if and when such risk assessment becomes positive(ie your potential to use nukes against US interests increases beyond certain limit) they will not hesitate to take them out..or at least will attempt to do so.

And here is the thing - Pakistan has no interest in a military confrontation with the US, therefore Pakistan's 'potential to use nukes against US interests' only increases in case of a 'US potential to militarily confront Pakistan'. Hence the argument of 'deterrence' - the value of nukes is in possessing them, not in using them.

Trying to 'snatch Pakistani nukes' would be perceived as a situation where the US is trying to destroy Pakistan, and therefore an act that crosses the 'nuclear threshold', which in itself act as a 'deterrent' against the US attempting to do so. One reason behind Pakistan's rapidly increasing nuclear arsenal is to make it even less feasible to contemplate a 'nuclear snatch operation', since the larger the arsenal, the harder to neutralize all of it without triggering a nuclear response.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan's nukes cannot just be taken out. They are not assembled lying somewhere. I have talked about this before in great detail, & I won't talk about it again. Feel free to live in your delusions. If the US was privy to inside details of Pakistan's nuclear program, then why does it keep fearing about Pakistan's nukes?

CIA: US does not know location of all Pakistan's nuclear weapons - Telegraph

Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Complex

NTI: Global Security Newswire - Pakistani Nukes Mean U.S. Should Think Hard on Strikes, Army Head Says

Some of the Indians are really quite upset about Pakistan 'standing its ground' in front of the US.

See, these people have convinced themselves of the 'cowardly, corrupt nature of the Pakistani Jurnails' (wetting their chaddhis and all that as BR folks like to describe it), and the current Pakistani stance pretty much destroys that nice little delusion they have built up for themselves. Not to mention the disappointment that comes with the realization that the US will not be doing the 'dirty work' for India in militarily attacking Pakistan.

 

[ares]

Pakistan's nukes cannot just be taken out. They are not assembled lying somewhere. I have talked about this before in great detail, & I won't talk about it again. Feel free to live in your delusions. If the US was privy to inside details of Pakistan's nuclear program, then why does it keep fearing about Pakistan's nukes?

CIA: US does not know location of all Pakistan's nuclear weapons - Telegraph

Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Complex

NTI: Global Security Newswire - Pakistani Nukes Mean U.S. Should Think Hard on Strikes, Army Head Says

Taking them out does not mean they will capture each and every nuke and then fly it back to US..they just have to render them useless ..as I believe you nukes are dismantled state ..warhead is lying in one part of the country , trigger in another..delivery sys in another..they have just take out(bomb, capture, bribe) one these components out ..the said nuke becomes unusable..but even then its is a daunting task.

However consider this, their failure(or semi-successes) in taking out all your nukes out will spell more misery for Pakistanis then were they to be successful.(because of your suicidal "use them before loose them policy")

 

[VelocuR]

Indian trolling must be excited by this news.

U-turn?: Convince Taliban to talk, US asks Pakistan

‘MOTHER-IN-LAW’ IN TOWN: Hillary Clinton with Hina Rabbani Khar ahead of their joint press conference in Islamabad.

ISLAMABAD: After months of belligerent rhetoric, the US is now willing to hold talks with the Afghan Taliban – and is looking at Pakistan as its go-between.

Speaking at a flurry of events on Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she had asked Pakistan to “encourage the Taliban to enter negotiations in good faith.” These talks would also involve the Haqqani network, a move which speaks volumes for the US’ urgency to end the decade-old conflict in the war-torn country.

In apparent diplomatic double-speak, however, Clinton also insisted that Pakistan take action within “days and weeks” to dismantle alleged terrorist sanctuaries on its soil, warning that a failure to do so would have devastating consequences for all concerned. “We should be able to agree that for far too long extremists have been able to operate here in Pakistan and from Pakistani soil,” she said.

“It’s like that old story: you can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours … eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard,” Clinton added.

Clinton’s requests for Pakistan to act as an intermediary were the first time the US had formally and publicly called for such action, and appear to reflect the Obama administration’s strong belief that Pakistan still holds significant sway over the Afghan Taliban. The secretary of state urged Pakistan to use its contacts with the “Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqanis and the other terrorist groups and try to get them into the peace process, but if that fails, to prevent them from committing more violence.”

Clinton has outlined three conditions for talks with the militants: they must lay down arms, abide by the Afghan constitution and respect basic human rights, especially women’s rights. On this latter point Clinton spoke at some length.

Despite reapplying pressure on Pakistan over alleged safe havens in North Waziristan, Clinton admitted, as had been earlier reported, that the US had already held a meeting with representatives from the Haqqani network, which was arranged through the ISI. “It was Pakistan who delivered the contact person,” Clinton said.

However, the Secretary of State stressed that the talks could not be termed a negotiation: “We’ve had one preliminary meeting just to see if they would show up.” It is believed the meeting took place during the summer, well before the attacks mounted by the insurgent group against US troops stationed in Afghanistan.

Clinton, who led a high-powered US delegation that includes CIA Director David Petraeus and the new Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, held extensive talks with Pakistan’s top civil and military leadership. It was unusual for such senior civil, military and intelligence officials to undertake a joint trip to Pakistan, and the Secretary of State said this reflected the urgency and the importance of working through the many challenges that the countries face.

Asked whether Pakistan and the US had reached an understanding on the Haqqani network, Clinton said there are options other than a military clampdown. Although she said that Pakistan should not “allow them (the Haqqanis) across the border into Afghanistan,” the Secretary of State emphasised that the US was “on the same page with (Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez) Kayani.”

Clinton also admitted that the US has no evidence of direct ISI involvement in the attack on the US Embassy in Kabul last month, as was earlier claimed by the US’ then top military man Admiral Mike Mullen. She also agreed that every intelligence agency has contacts with unsavory characters as it is part of their job.

The secretary of state went on to say that, at one point, Washington had considered unilateral action inside Pakistan. Clinton imagined a scenario in which more US personnel had lost their lives at the hands of the Haqqanis. Sentiments would have run high, she explained, but “boots on the ground was never a serious option.”

Foreign Minister Khar, who attended the high-level talks and held separate meeting with Clinton, acknowledged the presence of safe havens of terrorists in the tribal areas. “Do safe havens exist? Yes, they do exist – on both sides. Do we need to cooperate? Yes. We can cooperate more and achieve better results,” she added.

Clinton also highlighted the importance of trade between the two countries, having met President Asif Zardari and discussed economic cooperation. She added that the gas pipeline from Turkemenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan “is a good thing and we endorse it; it will bring prosperity to the region,” while urging caution over proposed cooperation with Iran, a “difficult and a dangerous” neighbour for Pakistan in her view.

Later Clinton interacted with Pakistani civil society leaders at a townhall style forum where she was confronted with tough questions. One of the female participants likened the United States to an unsatisfied mother-in-law.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2011.

 

[karan.1970]

Some of the Indians are really quite upset about Pakistan 'standing its ground' in front of the US.

See, these people have convinced themselves of the 'cowardly, corrupt nature of the Pakistani Jurnails' (wetting their chaddhis and all that as BR folks like to describe it), and the current Pakistani stance pretty much destroys that nice little delusion they have built up for themselves. Not to mention the disappointment that comes with the realization that the US will not be doing the 'dirty work' for India in militarily attacking Pakistan.

And some of the Pakistanis have convinced themselves that somehow the only goal India has is to get Pakistan attacked by US and get India's "Dirty Work" done.. What dirty work?? As a matter of fact, most Indians would not want an open conflict between USA and Pakistan on India's doorstep (discount the argumentative leg pulling on this forum aside), since it may lead to negative circumstances for India in case Pakistan takes a desperate step of a cornered animal..

Current situation of an uneasy alliance between USA and Pakistan works pretty well for India with USA's regular public nudges/pushes/diktats to Pakistan on acting against terrorists camps/safe havens on its soil and the simmering discontentment of Pakistani public given the regular drone strikes and terrorist attacks within the country..

 

[VelocuR]

Taking them out does not mean they will capture each and every nuke and then fly it back to US..they just have to render them useless ..as I believe you nukes are dismantled state ..warhead is lying in one part of the country , trigger in another..delivery sys in another..they have just take out(bomb, capture, bribe) one these components out ..the said nuke becomes unusable..but even then its is a daunting task.

However consider this, their failure(or semi-successes) in taking out all your nukes out will spell more misery for Pakistanis then were they to be successful.(because of your suicidal "use them before loose them policy")

The Indians are having trouble grasping the 'deterrence' concept, as they did in a previous discussion on the issue a month or so ago in the WMD section.

Why you discussed same again, same discussion few months ago and years ago. Read carefully on AM.

That's enough.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Darn, not only accepting the Pakistani position to try talks, but also admitting that there was no evidence of ISI complicity in the attacks in Afghanistan

Double whammy for those Indians always looking to scapegoat Pakistan.